At 11/19/2013 12:12:16 PM, Installgentoo wrote:Can anyone give me any proof or argument for strong atheism, or the belief that God does not exist?

I have seen strong atheists here. Could you justify your philosophy?

Define what you mean by "God"... Usually this term is pretty ambiguous, and if it's so ambiguous, I don't see how one can make a strong argument against it. The more ambiguous a term is, the more difficult it becomes to show it most probably does not exist.

"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."

I'd also add the Euthyphro dilemma in there, although this isn't so much an argument for atheism, as it is a problem for theists.

"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."

I like the argument from scale, but it is a weaker probability argument (it doesn't actually show God doesn't exist). If God exists, then he could have made the universe any size or age he wanted. He could have made just the Earth and have it be thousands of years old, he could have just made one galaxy, or two galaxies that are only millions of years old. This doesn't mean we would expect God to make a younger and smaller universe, just that he could have, but didn't have to. What about if Atheism is true? Well, if Atheism is true then we could only find ourselves in a universe like this, because only in a ridiculously large and old universe could something as improbable as life arising happen by accident. Since Atheism predicts that we are an accident, then Atheism predicts the large and old universe we see. Nothing about theism predicts this universe (he could have created any type of universe).

So, if Atheism is true, then this universe has to be the case (we could only reasonably be an accident in such a universe). If Theism is true, then it doesn't (God could have created any sized universe). Thus, our universe is more probable under Atheism than Theism. If God exists, it would just be too much of a coincidence that we just so happen to find ourselves in the only universe we could find ourself if he didn't exist.

At 11/19/2013 12:12:16 PM, Installgentoo wrote:Can anyone give me any proof or argument for strong atheism, or the belief that God does not exist?

I have seen strong atheists here. Could you justify your philosophy?

Define what you mean by "God"... Usually this term is pretty ambiguous, and if it's so ambiguous, I don't see how one can make a strong argument against it. The more ambiguous a term is, the more difficult it becomes to show it most probably does not exist.

At 11/19/2013 12:12:16 PM, Installgentoo wrote:Can anyone give me any proof or argument for strong atheism, or the belief that God does not exist?

I have seen strong atheists here. Could you justify your philosophy?

Define what you mean by "God"... Usually this term is pretty ambiguous, and if it's so ambiguous, I don't see how one can make a strong argument against it. The more ambiguous a term is, the more difficult it becomes to show it most probably does not exist.

There's only one definition of God, ya dumbass.

You clearly haven't researched the term God enough if you think there's only one definition.

Yeah, but only for a tri-omni God. It wouldn't prove strong atheism as a deistic apathetic God can exist with the arguments. The argument from divine hiddenness can be formulated to prove weak atheism tho.

At 11/19/2013 4:05:44 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:I like the argument from scale, but it is a weaker probability argument (it doesn't actually show God doesn't exist). If God exists, then he could have made the universe any size or age he wanted. He could have made just the Earth and have it be thousands of years old, he could have just made one galaxy, or two galaxies that are only millions of years old. This doesn't mean we would expect God to make a younger and smaller universe, just that he could have, but didn't have to. What about if Atheism is true? Well, if Atheism is true then we could only find ourselves in a universe like this, because only in a ridiculously large and old universe could something as improbable as life arising happen by accident. Since Atheism predicts that we are an accident, then Atheism predicts the large and old universe we see. Nothing about theism predicts this universe (he could have created any type of universe).

So, if Atheism is true, then this universe has to be the case (we could only reasonably be an accident in such a universe). If Theism is true, then it doesn't (God could have created any sized universe). Thus, our universe is more probable under Atheism than Theism. If God exists, it would just be too much of a coincidence that we just so happen to find ourselves in the only universe we could find ourself if he didn't exist.

This would make atheism the best explanation for the scale of the universe. But it wouldn't prvoe strong atheism. A deistic God who was just experimenting could still exist.

At 11/19/2013 12:12:16 PM, Installgentoo wrote:Can anyone give me any proof or argument for strong atheism, or the belief that God does not exist?

I have seen strong atheists here. Could you justify your philosophy?

Define what you mean by "God"... Usually this term is pretty ambiguous, and if it's so ambiguous, I don't see how one can make a strong argument against it. The more ambiguous a term is, the more difficult it becomes to show it most probably does not exist.

There's only one definition of God, ya dumbass.

You clearly haven't researched the term God enough if you think there's only one definition.

There's only one definition: an all-powerful and all-loving God of theology.

At 11/19/2013 12:12:16 PM, Installgentoo wrote:Can anyone give me any proof or argument for strong atheism, or the belief that God does not exist?

I have seen strong atheists here. Could you justify your philosophy?

Define what you mean by "God"... Usually this term is pretty ambiguous, and if it's so ambiguous, I don't see how one can make a strong argument against it. The more ambiguous a term is, the more difficult it becomes to show it most probably does not exist.

There's only one definition of God, ya dumbass.

You clearly haven't researched the term God enough if you think there's only one definition.

There's only one definition: an all-powerful and all-loving God of theology.

At 11/19/2013 12:12:16 PM, Installgentoo wrote:Can anyone give me any proof or argument for strong atheism, or the belief that God does not exist?

I have seen strong atheists here. Could you justify your philosophy?

Define what you mean by "God"... Usually this term is pretty ambiguous, and if it's so ambiguous, I don't see how one can make a strong argument against it. The more ambiguous a term is, the more difficult it becomes to show it most probably does not exist.

At 11/19/2013 3:43:10 PM, zmikecuber wrote:I'd also add the Euthyphro dilemma in there, although this isn't so much an argument for atheism, as it is a problem for theists.

Somewhat. There are a lot of rebuttals to it though..

True. But I've found that one would have to be at least somewhat versed in theology to present them coherently, which most Christians aren't, and when presented by a good thinker it can have a considerable amount of force.

"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."

At 11/19/2013 12:12:16 PM, Installgentoo wrote:Can anyone give me any proof or argument for strong atheism, or the belief that God does not exist?

I have seen strong atheists here. Could you justify your philosophy?

Define what you mean by "God"... Usually this term is pretty ambiguous, and if it's so ambiguous, I don't see how one can make a strong argument against it. The more ambiguous a term is, the more difficult it becomes to show it most probably does not exist.

There's only one definition of God, ya dumbass.

No, there's lots of different definitions of God. All the way from a big disembodied person's mind (theistic personalism) to a purely actual being, devoid of any admixture of potency (classical theism), all the way to saying everything in the universe makes up "God" (pantheism).

There's hundreds more...

"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."

At 11/19/2013 12:12:16 PM, Installgentoo wrote:Can anyone give me any proof or argument for strong atheism, or the belief that God does not exist?

I have seen strong atheists here. Could you justify your philosophy?

Define what you mean by "God"... Usually this term is pretty ambiguous, and if it's so ambiguous, I don't see how one can make a strong argument against it. The more ambiguous a term is, the more difficult it becomes to show it most probably does not exist.

There's only one definition of God, ya dumbass.

You clearly haven't researched the term God enough if you think there's only one definition.

There's only one definition: an all-powerful and all-loving God of theology.

Do some research. Look at the difference between Thomas Aquinas' conception of God, and the modern Evangelicals.

"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."

At 11/19/2013 12:12:16 PM, Installgentoo wrote:Can anyone give me any proof or argument for strong atheism, or the belief that God does not exist?

I have seen strong atheists here. Could you justify your philosophy?

Define what you mean by "God"... Usually this term is pretty ambiguous, and if it's so ambiguous, I don't see how one can make a strong argument against it. The more ambiguous a term is, the more difficult it becomes to show it most probably does not exist.

There's only one definition of God, ya dumbass.

You clearly haven't researched the term God enough if you think there's only one definition.

There's only one definition: an all-powerful and all-loving God of theology.

Do some research. Look at the difference between Thomas Aquinas' conception of God, and the modern Evangelicals.

They are all the same, read the Bible and you will see what God means to a theist, which I am.

At 11/19/2013 12:12:16 PM, Installgentoo wrote:Can anyone give me any proof or argument for strong atheism, or the belief that God does not exist?

I have seen strong atheists here. Could you justify your philosophy?

Define what you mean by "God"... Usually this term is pretty ambiguous, and if it's so ambiguous, I don't see how one can make a strong argument against it. The more ambiguous a term is, the more difficult it becomes to show it most probably does not exist.

There's only one definition of God, ya dumbass.

You clearly haven't researched the term God enough if you think there's only one definition.

There's only one definition: an all-powerful and all-loving God of theology.

Do some research. Look at the difference between Thomas Aquinas' conception of God, and the modern Evangelicals.

They are all the same, read the Bible and you will see what God means to a theist, which I am.

I've read the bible. Have you read Aquinas? Read Aquinas, get a general understanding for his metaphysics, then think of how this relates to the common perception of God, or even your perception of God. Then compare this to pantheism.

The term "God" is given different meanings. It's just a term.

"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."

Yeah, but only for a tri-omni God. It wouldn't prove strong atheism as a deistic apathetic God can exist with the arguments. The argument from divine hiddenness can be formulated to prove weak atheism tho.

I think that that version of God is the only one of philosophical interest. I'm not interested in a god who is functionally speaking indistinguishable from not existing or one that just created the universe and when on it's merry way or is evil or weak or...

Yeah, but only for a tri-omni God. It wouldn't prove strong atheism as a deistic apathetic God can exist with the arguments. The argument from divine hiddenness can be formulated to prove weak atheism tho.

I think that that version of God is the only one of philosophical interest. I'm not interested in a god who is functionally speaking indistinguishable from not existing or one that just created the universe and when on it's merry way or is evil or weak or...

Yeah, I would agree that God is the only one of philosophical interest. But strong atheism says even the Gods that aren't of philosophical interest don't exist.

Yeah, but only for a tri-omni God. It wouldn't prove strong atheism as a deistic apathetic God can exist with the arguments. The argument from divine hiddenness can be formulated to prove weak atheism tho.

I think that that version of God is the only one of philosophical interest. I'm not interested in a god who is functionally speaking indistinguishable from not existing or one that just created the universe and when on it's merry way or is evil or weak or...

Yeah, I would agree that God is the only one of philosophical interest. But strong atheism says even the Gods that aren't of philosophical interest don't exist.

Well, there is a different types strong Atheism. One asserts that no God exists, the other one asserts that a specific type of God doesn't exist.

At 11/19/2013 12:12:16 PM, Installgentoo wrote:Can anyone give me any proof or argument for strong atheism, or the belief that God does not exist?

I have seen strong atheists here. Could you justify your philosophy?

The strongest type of argument for strong atheism that I could imagine would be one what ostensibly seeks to demonstrate that God's existence (or one of His properties) is metaphysically impossible (e.g. omniscience entails a contradiction, etc.).

You are asking to justify a philosophy of non-belief. So I will reply by asking you to justify your non-belief in... Bugs Bunny as a real person, or Mickey Mouse as a real person, or the Tooth Fairy. Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are often used as well.

In reality, any person who believes in God is an Atheist. Christians are atheists in Zeus or any of the gods of the Romans or Greeks. Or of the Egyptians, or the Babylonians. I don't go around asking people to provide strong proofs about why garden gnomes aren't real, and then ask why they don't believe in them. Look up the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

But I won't leave you hanging. I will assume you are referring to the Judeo-Christian God as described in the Bible, and by extension, His Son, Jesus of Nazareth (which has become quite the tourist attraction, sort of a religious Disney World).

Some key points:1) The Bible is flawed and inaccurate on many levels. We can actually see specific problems in the preservation in it, that is, where scribes altered it, sometimes intentionally to match their theology at the time. Most scholars (those without a fundamentalist agenda) would agree that the New Testament is largely forged, and that the stories so beloved by millions around the world are actually recycled accounts from other religions. See Bart Ehrman and Richard Carrier. The first believes there was an actual Jesus,but that the Bible is basically useless as source book about Him because it is so filled with problems; the latter makes a strong case that Jesus was fabricated, a story created by Paul perhaps. Some additional points on this, a) Archaeology does not support the Bible accounts b) Joshua's sun standing still does not fit with astronomy c) Matthew was the only one who saw the zombie apocalypse when Jesus died and the graves gave up their dead d) The Israelites never existed in such large numbers in Egypt e) There was no Red Sea crossing or 40 years in the wilderness

2) Evolution. The evidence FOR it is mind-boggling. We have specific ways to accurately date fossils and artifacts, and we know that the Babylonians were making glue when the Genesis account says the world began. (Perhaps that's where God got His glue from?). We have transition creatures and have actually been able to look for them by mapping out the species we knew about. The original Hebrew of Genesis doesn't allow for evolution to fit in, which is why either people do some crazy theological gymnastics to squeeze it in, or seek to discredit/destroy evolution.

3) The social meme of religion...aka The God Virus a book by Darrel Ray. Richard Dawkins coined the word meme, as an idea virus. Darrel Ray does an excellent job of fleshing out this concept and demonstrating it at work. The theory is an elegant and sufficient explanation for some very perplexing things we observe in human behavior surrounding religion. I mention this, because I believe that religion created God, not the other way around.

4) The concept of a soul (ie, that we are entities of some sort inhabiting our bodies, sort of like the Daleks inhabit their robot-like shells, is actually the result of a "firmware" glitch. Our adaptive survival strategies have created structures in both hardware and software that we run on, that create glitches in our perceptions. Everyone is familiar with optical illusions, and how we can trick our eyes. But we can do the same thing with our brains, and "the Soul" is such an illusion. From there we devised a story about someone who created our souls, (aka God), and it just went downhill.

5) Go read "Letter to a Christian Nation" by Sam Harris. He recommends these books:

1. The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins2. Breaking the Spell by Daniel C. Dennett3. Misquoting Jesus by Bart D. Ehrman4. Kingdom Coming by Michelle Goldberg5. The End of Days by Gershom Gorenberg6. Freethinkers by Susan Jacoby7. Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds by Charles Mackay8. Why I Am Not a Christian by Bertrand Russell9. God, the Devil, and Darwin by Niall Shanks10. Atheism: The Case Against God by George H. Smith

I would also look up James Randi, Christopher Hitchens, Michael Shermer, "the Jesus Puzzle" by Earl Doherty.

I suspect you may have been looking for a specific argument that you could either tear down, or use on someone else. The challenge with the "proofs" for God, is that they are sort of like math homework in school... they don't do anything useful except hone your skills at the calculations. God doesn't begin to exist or cease to exist because someone came up with a clever argument; logic does not create or destroy reality. Proofs like that are sort of like word games to entertain oneself on a rainy afternoon when you can't go outside and the power is out.

Consensus isn't a way of finding out the truth either; how many times did your mother ask you, "If all your friends are jumping off a bridge, would you jump too?" (Let's pretend the bungee jumping thing doesn't exist for a moment). So simply because millions of Muslims believe in Allah, doesn't make Allah real or not.

Christopher Hitchens said 'That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.' The burden is really on the Theist to prove THEIR position, rather than on the skeptic to prove the NON-reality of God. It's rather odd to ask for someone to prove a "nothing".

As in, "prove you didn't kiss Julie in the second grade on the playground on Thursday". It would be quite interesting to see that proof for strong A-kissing-Julie-ism.

Sorry this may have been a bit long, but I've been thinking about this quite a bit for the last few months, as I have been working through my own shift from a seminary-trained believer to non-Theist. I was actually looking up some information when I stumbled across this forum/website.